Talk

Advanced search

vitamin k

(16 Posts)
starshaker Thu 17-Mar-05 21:16:22

hi was at my appointment with the midwife today and we did my birth plan i was asked about vitamin k and whether i wanted my baby to get it after she is born i was just wandering if people could give me more advice about it

lilsmum Thu 17-Mar-05 21:27:27

my dd had it, i think (dont quote me) that it is something to do with helping the blood clot or something, cant quite remember, do a search on google, or there should also be some info in your pregnancy book you get off the midwife

Evesmama Thu 17-Mar-05 21:35:13

i had to give it to dd when i said i was breast feeding, but quickly changed to bottle and they said i didnt have to give her anymore.hth

beansprout Thu 17-Mar-05 21:41:45

They are given a boost of it when they are born. It can be by injection or a couple of oral doses. Your choice. Most people opt for the jab as it is quicker and then it is done.

It felt like a big deal when I was writing my birth plan but in the event, with everything happening, I forgot all about it to be honest!

bonym Thu 17-Mar-05 21:42:41

It is usually given as a matter of course unless you specifically ask for it not to be. It is to do with blood clotting - babies have very low levels of Vit K straight after birth and about 9 in 100,000 will develop a bleeding disorder (potentially fatal) because of this. Babies are more at risk if premature, breech, delivered by forceps or cs or if they've been distressed during labour or have a liver disorder. Apparently it is more common in breastfed babies because formula has vitK added. HTH

JPM Thu 17-Mar-05 21:43:32

Have to agree with beansprout. Both mine had it - looked into it a great deal before they were born but can't remember what I found out - only that it was a positive and not a negative and injection is easier than oral.

CarolinaMoon Thu 17-Mar-05 21:58:30

you have a choice between the baby being given an injection right after birth or a course of oral medication (?3 lots i think), or none at all of course. I was told there was some worry a couple of decades ago about a possible link between the injection and leukaemia (which is why the oral version was developed), but that later studies had shown there was no link. personally, I went for the injection (the MW pointed out this meant not having to take the baby along to clinic for the oral version when you'd rather be having a rest ). i've since seen stuff querying whether babies should be given any vit k at all - as lilsmum says, it is worth a google.

CarolinaMoon Thu 17-Mar-05 22:01:32

sorry, didn't mean to repeat earlier posts , was typing too slowly!

kama Thu 17-Mar-05 22:01:37

Message withdrawn

pixiefish Thu 17-Mar-05 22:13:37

I agreed to give dd the jab after she was born. Something to do with clotting and as I have a clotting problem I thought it was safer for her to have it

starshaker Thu 17-Mar-05 22:14:23

thanx think i just wanted to know that people do normally go for getting it done. not sure if there was any side effects to getting it

bonym Fri 18-Mar-05 08:49:20

Where I llive (Cardiff) they give it orally,because, as CarolinaMoon says, there was a potential link made between the injection and childhood leukemia - this has never been proven but I guess a lot of parents don't want to take an even unproven risk.

TracyK Fri 18-Mar-05 09:10:43

Well I decided against it altogether. Have a google on it and read the stories.
Didn't see the need to have it given - so said to give only in the event of a traumatic birth.

highlander Fri 18-Mar-05 16:46:45

I asked for DS's to be given orally - they had to call in the paediatrician because it's the norm for all babies to be given an injection. He had one dose and only found out months later on this site that he should have been given 3 doses! Bit of a worry as, despite being a CS, he still needed to be vacuumed out and a large haematoma on his head.

Sallie Fri 18-Mar-05 16:52:54

DH is a doctor and we didn't question having it. He has seen plenty of cases where things have gone wrong to persuade him that it was the right thing to do. Rather like the MMR - it is an emotive subject and a very personal choice. I shall be giving it to no 3 when born.

zebra Fri 18-Mar-05 17:13:13

I used to be thought that human milk was too low in iron, now we know that the iron is so bio-available that human milk doesn't need to be high enough in iron to be adequate, it may be the same with apparently "too low " levels of Vit. K in human milk. Keep inmind that colostrum is richer in Vit. K than mature milk, too.

This site says that the right enzymes for the body to absorb Vit. K orally don't appear in babies until 3 months old, and that the highest risk of hemorage is in the first 3 days, before the oral dose could be well absorbed in any case, which makes me think the jab is a better bet. Also reviews the research that provoked controversary about the jab.

I'm not sure that mother nature really did get it right on this one, though, low Vit. K levels may have had other benefits before or during birth that were worth taking the risk of hemorage afterwards, but as humans we can choose to not have the risk trade-off.

For my own babies I got oral doses, or no dose at all...But not at all sure if what I did was best. I'm thru having babies but if I had another I think maybe I'd get the jab, get it over & done with.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now